Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

^ This "rule" has not been approved by the moderator team, so it cannot rightly be called a rule. All it can be called is one individual's personal request to the rest of us. Everyone feel free, then, to "obey" it or not according to your purposes.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

Or three times.

Incredibl!E

Is it?

This is ridiculous.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue fr

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

What would be really annoying is to quote something like that twice in a post.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

can you refute anything the source mentions ?

Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.

if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.

Makes it much easier to read.

Thanks...

It's often helpful to be able to trace the entire line of discussion without clicking through the whole thread.

It's not like we're wasting paper.

I wonder how long a quotation like that can be on this forum (character limit). Perhaps we can find out here.

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.[/quote

what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,

Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,

No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc

No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?

correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

That doesn't make sense. If you are agreeing, but not wanting to add another ridiculous picture, you should have said, "I agree." But if you were agreeing while also wanting to add another ridiculous picture, then you should have added another ridiculous picture. As it is, though, you've agreed with Asteriktos but then added the very same picture while adding 'also'. You see, you're saying in addition to that ridiculous picture, this one is also. But since you added the very same picture, it's as if you've said nothing at all because it's like two negatives which means... oh, dear! I've gone cross-eyed.

« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 11:49:17 PM by GabrieltheCelt »

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying